--when you click on the real-estate link. Heck of a good return on a net $434,5000 investment (price of lot, minus slice sold, plus cost of fence) by Mrs. Rezko, or on whatever the attorney then paid her for it.

This is only the beginning, I assure you. Chicago politics is the worst sort of politics and Obama dirtied his hands elsewhere I assure you.

This story does not make him unfit to run for President of the United States or ultimately serve in that capacity, however, because (like it or not) politics is what it is, and there simply are NO clean hands.

It does, however, call into question the recent canonization of a candidate that is both human and flawed. It brings him down off of his lofty hill and forces people to consider him through something other than rose-tinted lenses. And ultimately I believe that will make him a better candidate and make for a more informed electorate.

Thank you,

Robert Sandy

I had heard about the Obama-Rezko real estate deal and always had this image in my head of a house with a vacant lot next door. I saw the MSNBC video by Lisa Myers and another journalist and my jaw dropped. I think that the vacant lot description is a misrepresentation of the home and land that were purchased. This vacant lot is the yard to this very lovely home. I don't know the time frame for when it was listed separately, but now I keep wondering if this wasn't a scheme cooked up by the Rezkos where Obama bought the house and the Rezkos bought the yard because Obama didn't have the money to buy the property outright. Senator Obama obviously wanted the land as he purchased some of it within 6 months of the original real estate purchase. I suspect that if there hadn't been so much talk he would have eventually have bought it all. I understand that it is legal if there is no quid pro quo, but can you just accept favors like this one where someone buys an over $600,000 piece of property so you can buy the house that it used to go with if you are an elected official? Can you accept unlimited gifts as long as there are no political favors done in return? I thought that this level of action on behalf of a donor for a politician was unethical.

can be found at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/171056/015

Ronald W. Burkle? To Frank Giustra? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?em&ex=1201928400&en=2f3b14d2114e7d12&ei=5087%0A

Jim McDougal? Mark Rich? etc. etc. etc. etc.

Rezko is a slightly larger scandal than we've seen from the Clintons just this year with Hsu. Surely you jest.

I am so tired of scandals and all the energy put into them. It's as bad as OK! or People, Us, TMZ, or even that cheesy hack site called Gawker. I am so sorry Mr. McClelland, and I mean no disrespect, but I haven't the energy to read this right now.

the Chicago Tribune which has done a bit of digging on this very issue endorsed Barack Obama.

It's also worth noting that the 10 foot strip of land purchased by the Obama's was bought ABOVE market price. Think about that for a moment. No one was getting a sweet-heart deal here -- and as the article states there has never been any evidence of wrong-doing.

If guilt by association is a sufficient grounds for having "bad character judgment" the balance of the evidence still favors Obama.

"If guilt by association is a sufficient grounds for having "bad character judgment"..."

Then I have had bad character judgement many, if not most times in my life.

Damn glad I am not a politician. And while we are on that topic, why would anyone want to put themselves and their families through this? I know, I know, 'to make a difference', but have you ever noticed just the physical appearance of Presidents as they enter office compared to when they leave?

The battle is only beginning in this Presidential race. When this much money is spent and this much is at stake, who knows what will come up. Things have already been made up about each candidate, that much we know. I'd feel bad for them all if they weren't so absolutely nuts to do this in the first place.

This is rather disappointing for Obama to be engaging in a special deal to get a beautiful house and property for well below market. It's understandable that he would want a nice place to live, but to ...as he puts it...engage in a 'boneheaded' transaction is dodgy. As eloquent of a speaker that he is, it's his actions that matter and this is not a good one - frankly hypocritical. He doesn't have my vote.

I think examining this issue, plainly and honestly, is a good idea. If a politician is running on integrity, then looking deeply at his actions is fair game.

McClelland seems to have some desire to portray this in the worst posible light, though. He writes:

On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the vacant lot for $625,000. They later sold a portion of the lot to the Obamas, for $104,500, so the family could expand its yard. The Rezkos then paid $14,000 to build a fence along the property line.

The context of this was suggesting that Obama had involvement with something shady. While that is possible, what is also possible is this:

- Perhaps the "portion" of the land was exactly the percent of $104,500 / $625,00. Meaning = perhaps it was at market value. Curiously no mention of this at all. Just allusion to wrongdoing.

- The $14,000 fence tab may have been a portion of the entire fence ... meaning = perhaps the Obama's paid $75,000 for most of the fence, and they split the cost with their neighbor. this is what almost all Americans do. And yet, not a word offering how much Obama paid on the fence.

Give me a break. The slippery characters in the Clinton life story dwarf Rezko 50 times over. What is the point of this exactly? Between Joan Walsh talking about the race issue that barely exists and Joe Conason's thinly veiled Clinton fundamentalism, I hope you're at least getting some money from the Clintonistas for all this effort on their behalf. Why don't you get Sydney Blumenthal back to write some "unbiased analysis."